<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><u>SMITH J. </u></strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The first point for decision is whether or not the office of Chairman of the Interim Assembly comes within the scope of office to which quo warranto (now injunction) proceedings are applicable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As was said by Tindal C.J. in <strong>Darley v. R (1846) 12 Cl. and Fin. 520; 8 E.R. 1513</strong> :</p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em>“this proceeding by information in the nature of quo warranto will lie for usurping any office; whether created by Charter alone or by the Crown, with the consent of Parliament, provided the office be of a public nature, and a substantive office, not merely the function or employment of a deputy or servant held at the will and pleasure of others.&quot;</em></strong></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">There are three tests-the source of office, the tenure, and the duties. As regards the source, that is the Statutory Instrument-the Ghana (Constitution) Order in Council, 1957. I think the tenure sufficient to satisfy the rule. In the case of <strong>R. v. Speyer [1916] 2 K.B. 595 at p. 611</strong>, Lord Reading says:</p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em>“I have found it difficult to understand why in principle an o…</em></strong></p></blockquote>